New Obama directive amnesties illegal-immigrants if they're *parents*

Every predicted step is happening, just as predicted and right on schedule.

A couple of years ago Democrats were pushing for a law called the "Dream Act," that would have legalized non-U.S.-born children of illegal immigrant parents.  They didn't have enough votes to pass it.  But being Democrats they weren't about to let the opportunity pass to add a million more Democrat voters to their ranks.  They were determined that children of illegals were gonna become U.S. citizens and Dem voters, law or no law, and regardless of your objections that this was illegal.

So a year or so ago Obama simply...ordered...federal employees to stop deporting non-U.S.-born children of illegals, as long as the child was under 16 or so when they illegally entered.  Obviously this was ordering government employees to violate U.S. law--one of several Obama has ignored--and should be an impeachable offense.  But of course congress and the media just smiled and congratulated Obama on being so compassionate.

Unfortunately the problem with a president deciding to break one law--especially when done "for the very best of reasons" and cloaked in soaring, feel-good rhetoric--is that there's no reason not to do it again.  And again.  And....

And sure enough, two days ago the Obama administration took the next step in eliminating the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws:  Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a a nine-page memo to its agents instructing them to use “prosecutorial discretion” in considering whether to deport illegal immigrant adults who happen to be parents.

So now Obama has unilaterally stopped enforcing U.S. immigration law against both the children illegal immigrants bring with them, and against the parents of such children.  In other words, if someone illegally entering the U.S. brings their children with them, the Obama administration won't deport the parents. 

In effect, they just gave the green light to anyone wanting to enter, by essentially promising they won't be deported as long as they have minor children.

"Wait," I hear liberals saying, "the directive doesn't say that!"

Yes, it does.  But you have to have enough experience deciphering bureau-babble to recognize the implications of deliberately-evasive language. 

As most adults intuitively recognize, when governments (at any level) are enacting a policy they know a huge chunk of the voters would hate, the politicians cloak the policy in language that is almost indecipherable to the layman.  (Too many examples to bother citing.)   That's what they did here.  The actual directive is called the "Family Interest Directive," and here it is:

FODs shall continue to weigh whether an exercise of prosecutorial discretion may be warranted for a given alien and shall consider all relevant factors in this determination, including whether the alien is a parent or legal guardian of a USC or LPR minor, or is a primary caretaker of a minor.

FODs are field operations directors, LPRs are legal permanent residents and USCs are U.S. citizens.

The first two words that grab the experienced reader are "shall" and "continue."  The first requires no elaboration but is a big red flag for bureaucrats.  It translates, "Not complying will kill your career."

The word "continue" is intended to do two things:  First it lulls the ordinary citizen into believing--erroneously--that this policy isn't new, and thus is nothing to be concerned about.  Second, it's a code word for bureaucrats that says--again, falsely--"this has always been our policy and if you haven't been doing it you somehow missed the memo, so you'd better get with the program NOW."

After getting the employee's attention the directive gives de-facto amnesty to parents of "LPR minors."  To understand the significance of this, recall that a year or so ago Obama unilaterally ordered ICE agents to stop deporting minor children of illegal immigrants.  This granted the children the equivalent of legal permanent residency (even though that exact term was not used, for obvious reasons).  Thus the new directive amounts to granting amnesty to the parents who brought them in illegally.

Only by having a clear understanding of how this trick was done can you hope to see it coming next time:  The Democrats tugged at everyone's heartstrings with "Oh, da poor kiddoes who were brought in by their, uh, not-yet-documented parents at the tender age of two or ten didn't have any choice in the matter, so it's just totally unfair to deport them now."  And then after everyone acquiesced at Obama's unilateral re-write of the LAW to carry out this wunnerful goal, it was no stretch to say "It's cruel to separate families, so we won't deport the parents who brought in these unfortunate children illegally.

Is there anyone who did NOT see that coming?

This amnesty for parents of the children they brought in illegally years ago is another huge re-writing of federal law--and again, should be grounds for impeachment.  But the coup de grace in in the quoted paragraph's very last phrase:  "...or is a primary caretaker of *a* minor." 

The first phrase "only" amnestied parents of those who brought in children years ago.  But the last phrase extends de-facto amnesty to anyone who IS a "primary caretaker of a minor."  In other words, if you enter the U.S. illegally today, and have a kid with you, you get de-facto amnesty.

Well played, Democrats.  Lie, re-write laws to suit your schemes, and violate the Constitution--it's worth it to win elections for the next half-century or so, eh?  Plus, you get to feel so self-righteous while you're doing it.  Cuz "it's for the children," right?

Well, maybe not for the children of American citizens, but who wants to quibble over trivial details, eh?

Oh, and for you Democrats who think I just invented this directive--and who reflexively discounted the link because it was from a conservative site--here's a link to the actual nine-page directive from the government's own website.  The 'graf quoted above is 5.2.1. on page 3.


Footnote:  Since we were once "a nation of laws," ICE agents filed suit in federal court to try to block Obama's first directive.  They couldn't even get the case heard:   Last month a federal judge declared that the case could not properly be tried in federal court.  In his written ruling the judge said that although the plaintiffs (the ICE agents) were probably correct in arguing that U.S. law required that they continue to arrest illegal immigrants, the case could not be heard in federal court because...it was a matter for collective bargaining.

Are you surprised?  The judge's decision to reject would not have made any more or less sense if the judge had cited the phases of the moon, or electromagnetic fields, or the Trayvon Martin shooting, as the grounds for his decision. 

Well played, Democrats!   Remember, all of this has happened because an extra 3 percent of y'all fell for the media propaganda and voted for a guy with zero credentials, near-zero accomplishments and experience, a clear socialist agenda and a promise to "fundamentally change" America.

And I know many of you just *love* the results.  But for the ten percent of y'all who, uh, were willing to overlook the negatives for the guilt-assuaging (or Bush-revenging) thrill of electing a black president...how's that working out for ya?